Aquaculture Stewardship Council

    The Netherlands

    Correspondence

    July 18 - August 11, 2023
    4 inquiries
    6 replies

    Email sent to the Aquaculture Stewardship Council's global press manager and media team.

    The email said: "I’m contacting you in light of our latest investigation, which concerns the use of forced labor in China’s seafood processing industry, and a link we’ve discovered with several plants that have Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) certifications.

    Our investigation has identified 6 ASC certified seafood processing facilities in China using forced labor from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. We have found evidence of the presence of Uyghur forced labor at the following five sites over a multi-year period: Rongcheng Haibo Seafood Co. Ltd. (ASC-C-03831) Rizhao Meijia Keyuan Foods Co. Ltd. (ASC-C-02356) Shandong Haidu Ocean Product Co. Ltd. (ASC-C-02486) Rizhao Jiayuan Foodstuff Co. Ltd. (ASC-C-02663) Shandong Meijia Group Co. Ltd. (ASC-C-02843)

    Regarding a sixth site, Rongcheng Huiying Foods Co. Ltd. (ASC-C-03363), our research found that the parent company of the factory is known to have accepted Uyghurs through a Chinese government labor transfer program.

    The United Nations, human rights organizations and academic experts agree that since 2018, the Chinese government has systematically subjected Xinjiang’s predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities to forced labor across the country via state-sanctioned employment schemes which use coercive methods in worker enrolment.

    Could the Aquaculture Stewardship Council please clarify whether each of the processing plants named above undertook third-party social audits? Please also indicate the company which delivered the audits, audit dates, audit scheme, and whether the audits identified the presence of workers deployed through the Chinese government's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region labor transfer program.

    Does ASC have any comment to make in light of the above information? Please respond to this email by close of business July 21."

    Desirée Pesci, Global Press and PR Manager replied: "Thanks for contacting us. I hereby acknowledge receipt of your email. We will respond to your questions before the deadline."

    Desirée Pesci, Global Press and PR Manager at the ASC replied: "Thank you for getting in touch and for informing us about your investigation and findings. This information is very concerning to ASC. We were not aware of the extent to which the Xinjiang labour transfer programme expanded outside of the Xinjiang Region and the risks that this presents to employees of seafood operations in other provinces across China, until your investigation brought this to our attention.

    The protection and promotion of human rights are a key part of Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC)’s mission and vision, and we strongly condemn all forms of forced labour. ASC has a robust and rapidly developing human rights programme driven by transparency, accountability, continuous improvement, and stakeholder engagement. Our species-specific Farm Standards and Feed Standard cover a wide range of requirements to protect human rights, including forced labour, child labour, freedom of association and grievance mechanisms, among others.

    To ensure traceability and segregation of ASC products along the supply chain, we share the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)’s Chain of Custody (CoC) Standard for processors and suppliers that handle ASC certified seafood. We place a high value on transparency in our system, but this does work slightly differently in the shared ASC/MSC Chain of Custody.

    We can confirm that the listed companies have all undertaken third-party social audits (Sedex SMETA) between December 2021 and July 2022 and that no business-critical issues were raised in any of these audits, but we do not have access to further details on the labour audits. All the six companies have had their last CoC audit between July 2022 and April 2023.

    Last year, in order to strengthen ASC's assurance system and address emergent issues such as seafood fraud and mislabelling, food safety and some that are specific for farmed seafood (e.g. use of antibiotics), ASC launched a new CoC Module, which applies only to ASC farmed seafood products. One of the additions within this module is a defined list of ineligibility criteria which allow ASC and certifiers (CABs) to withdraw certificates from companies involved in unacceptable practices such as illegal or fraudulent activities, or unethical behaviour. There must be objective evidence for this decision to be made (see 6.2.8.1; p13 ). We would, therefore, be grateful if you could share the evidence that you have, so that we can conduct our own investigation in the matter and take appropriate action.

    Thank you again for bringing this to our attention. We would also be grateful if you could let us know when you intend to publish your findings."

    The Outlaw Ocean Project replied: "Thanks for confirming that the listed companies have undertaken SMETA audits. Could you please share the specific audit dates for each plant and, if you're able, the identity of the firm conducting the audit?

    The new module you've shared refers to violations of "applicable laws and regulations relevant to the ‘scope of the CoC Standard’" - would that include the US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act? And may I clarify that your position is that the CoC certification of a plant would be revoked if an ASC investigation determines the presence of Xinjiang workers deployed through government labor transfer?

    Our publication timeline remains uncertain at the moment, we've still a good deal of reporting to do."

    Bertrand Charron, Director of Market Research & Insights and Interim/Acting Director of Corporate Communications emailed: I’m taking over the correspondence in Daisy’s absence. I just wanted to let you know that we haven’t ‘forgotten’ at all. This issue is of great concern to us and we are chasing leads to gather information to be in a position to best answer your questions. I hope to be able to answer you tomorrow and/but realistically it may be next week before you hear from us."

    The Outlaw Ocean Project sent a reminder email about the outstanding questions.

    Bertrand Charron replied for ASC, saying: "I’d like to assure you that we will be responding to your query and are doing our utmost that regard. These are rightfully very important topics and questions. As much as we’d like to be able to provide you with those in a speedy manner, we need to reach out for information, and to consult with the right people within our organisation… some of whom are currently on holiday and cannot be reached at this time. Realistically it will be mid-next week before we can revert to you."

    The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed Desirée Pesci and Bertrand Charron at the ASC, asking if they would respond to the earlier queries by the end of the week.

    Bertrand Charron responded: "I’ve been travelling in the past 3 days and some of our key executives were also away, so Thank you for your patience. We will respond to you tomorrow, Friday."

    Bertrand Charron replied for the ASC: "Please find below ASC’s responses and clarifications to your questions, without prejudice.

    [1] “Could you please share the specific audit dates for each plant and, if you're able, [2] the identity of the firm conducting the audit?” We are unfortunately unable to assist regarding this information as the data which is included in individual SMETA audit reports – to which ASC does not have access – cannot be released as this would breach Sedex member confidentiality, as defined by Sedex Terms of Service.

    [3] The new module you've shared refers to violations of "applicable laws and regulations relevant to the ‘scope of the CoC Standard’" - would that include the US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act? The new ASC CoC Module became effective in May 2023, and for the clause 6.2.8.1(i) relating to “illegal activities or products that are not consistent with applicable laws and regulations relevant” to apply, any laws being referred to must therefore be “relevant” and “applicable”; and the breach supported by objective evidence as per Guidance to 6.2.8.1. In the context of products being imported into the US, all US laws -- and thus the US UFLPA -- would be applicable for US based COC Certificate Holders.

    Excerpted from the ASC CoC Module v1.1 (p13): Part B - Additions to MSC CoC Certification Requirements (requirements for CABs) Ineligibility for certification 6.2.8.1: The CAB shall not certify (nor continue to certify) organisations which meet any of the ineligibility criteria defined by ASC. The following ineligibility criteria relate to activities involving an organisation's beneficial owners, leadership, staff or other connected persons or other entitites under the organisation's control. i. Illegal activities or products that are not consistent with applicable laws and regulations relevant to the 'scope of the CoC Standar' ii. Fraudulent activities, such as forged documents or 'seafood fraud' iii. Corruption or otherwise unethical behavior iv. History of repeated, persistent or systematic non-conformities v. Successful prosecution for forced labour, child labour, slavery or human trafficking vi. The organisation presents a reputational risk to ASC via association due to doubt about its transparency, impartiaility or overall credibility.

    [4] And may I clarify that your position is that the CoC certification of a plant would be revoked if an ASC investigation determines the presence of Xinjiang workers deployed through government labor transfer? Under the new ASC CoC Module requirements and as also referred to above, ASC can enforce suspension of an ASC CoC certificate in specific cases, if there is objective evidence of at least one of the criteria listed in clause 6.2.8.1(i) – (vi). ASC is determined to work so that no human rights abuses occur in aquaculture. We are very conscious that this is a goal which can only be attained via industry-wide collaboration.

    Let us conclude and reiterate without prejudice that for ASC to pursue an investigation into the matter, we would first need you/the Ocean Outlaw Project to forward any objective evidence that you have.

    Thank you again for bringing this very important issue to our attention."

    Future correspondence will be added here as this conversation continues.